Petition DENIED.

Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Not be allowed to amend the complaint because prior orders were
already based on a different premise contrary to the amendment
to be made. Otherwise, would violate immutability of judgment.
Notice of lis pendens be deleted because P has no interest on the
land and proceedings has become final.
Rules of Court is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated
on April 30, 2003 which reversed and set aside the Order dated August 14 ,
2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 93; and the
CA Resolution of July 4, 2003, denying the Motion for Reconsideration
of Ligaya, Charito, Paraluman and Efren, all surnamed Biglang-Awa
(petitioners).

Republic of the Philippines The facts of the case are as follows:

Supreme Court On November 22, 2000, herein petitioners, together with their
Manila mother, EncarnacionCleofas Vda. de Biglang-Awa (Encarnacion), filed a
Complaint[2] for declaration of nullity of deeds, cancellation of
titles, reconveyance and recovery with damages before the RTC
THIRD DIVISION of Quezon City against Roberth B. Tolentino (Tolentino), Philippine Trust
Co. (respondent) and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.

LIGAYA, CHARITO, G.R. NO. 158998 In the complaint, petitioners and Encarnacion alleged that they are the
PARALUMAN And EFREN, legitimate owners of eight parcels of land, all located
all surnamed BIGLANG-AWA along Quirino Highway, NovalichesQuezon City, to wit:
Petitioners,
Present: 1) Lot 884-B, Psd-00-043766, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. N-181964, in the name of Ligaya Biglang-Awa
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., (Ligaya);
Chairperson, 2) Lot 884-C, Psd-00-043766, covered by TCT No. N-
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 181965, in the name of Paraluman Biglang-Awa
CHICO-NAZARIO, (Paraluman);
NACHURA, and 3)Lot 884-D, Psd-00-043766, covered by TCT No. N-
REYES, JJ. 181966, in the name of Hector Biglang-Awa (Hector);

4) Lot 884-E, Psd-00-043766, covered by TCT No. N-

Promulgated: 181967, in the name of Efren Biglang-Awa (Efren), and
Respondent. March 28, 2008
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 5) Lots 884-F, 884-G, 884-H and 884-I, all of Psd-00-
043766 and covered by TCT Nos. N-181968, N-181969, N-
181970 and N-181971, respectively, all of which are in the
DECISION name of Encarnacion.

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Petitioners averred that in 1977, without the knowledge and consent
of Encarnacionand through fraudulent manipulations, misrepresentations and
the use of falsified documents, Tolentino succeeded in having four of the
eight subject parcels of land, which are in the name of Encarnacion,
encumbered by way of mortgage to secure a loan made by Tolentino with
respondent; that on separate occasions in 1998 and 2000, and using similar
fraudulent manipulations, misrepresentations and use of falsified
documents, Tolentino was able to secure in his name new Torrens titles over
all the eight subject parcels of land.
Subsequently, petitioners caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on
all the titles registered in the name of Tolentino.
On January 3, 2001, Tolentino filed a Motion to Dismiss[3] on the ground
that Ligayaof lack capacity to sue in behalf of the other plaintiff, and that she
has no cause of action considering that she has sold her property to Tolentino.
On January 4, 2001, Encarnacion filed a Notice of Dismissal[4] claiming that
the subject complaint was filed without her permission and/or conformity;
that the four parcels of land, titled under her name, and which formed part of
the subject matter of the said complaint, were solely her own; and that she
freely and satisfactorily sold them to Tolentino.
On even date, respondent filed its Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaim[5] praying that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action against it, and for failure of Encarnacion to verify and certify
the complaint against it.
On February 2, 2001, the RTC issued an Order, to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, the court confirms
plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofas vda. de Biglang-Awa's notice
of dismissal pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure as amended.
The action therefore, insofar as
plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofas vda. De Biglang-Awa only and
all the defendants are concerned, is DISMISSED with
prejudice. Let her name be deleted from the caption of the
complaint.
With this dismissal, there is no further legal obstacle to the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on TCT
Nos. N-198629; N-198630, N-198631; and N-198632, all in
the name of defendant Roberth B. Tolentino.
SO ORDERED.[6] (Emphasis supplied)
Thereafter, Tolentino filed a Motion for Issuance of a Certificate of Finality
of the Court's Order of February 2, 2001.
On February 19, 2001, herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Order of the RTC dated February 2, 2001.[7]
Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and
to Admit Attached Amended Complaint.[8] The Amended Complaint seek
to impleadEncarnacion petitioner and a sister Liwayway Biglang-Awa
(Liwayway) as party defendants. Petitioners contend that they, together
with Encarnacion and Liwaywayare co-owners, pro-indiviso, of the subject
parcels of land; that throughmanipulations and
misrepresentations, Tolentino, Encarnacion and Liwayway were able to
secure a partition of and titles over the disputed properties.
On April 16, 2001, the RTC issued a Resolution pertinent portions of which
read as follows:
The following incidents thus, have been submitted to the
court for resolution:
1) Motion For Issuance of a Certificate of Finality of the
court's order of February 02, 2001;
2) Motion for Reconsideration of the February 02,
2001 order;
3) Motion to Dismiss filed by Tolentino; and
4) Motion For Leave to Amend Complaint
On The Motion For Issuance of a Certificate of Finality
The records show that plaintiffs, other
than Encarnacion Cleofas, filed their motion for
reconsideration on February 19, 2001, which is the 15th day
counting from February 02, 2001, of the 15-day period
within which a party aggrieved may either appeal or move to
reconsider a final order. Thus, a motion for reconsideration
having been filed seasonably, Tolentino's motion for a
certificate of finality, perforce, must be denied as the court
hereby denies the same.
On The Motion For Reconsideration
The court notes that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
was filed not by Encarnacion Cleofas but by her co-
plaintiffs. To the court, the notice of dismissal filed by
plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofas Vda. de Biglang Awa is
something that is personal to her. The same having been
filed pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 17, the court's action on
her initiative is limited to merely confirming said dismissal.
From this confirmatory order of the court only she and she
alone may move to reconsider or move for any other reliefs.
Her co-plaintiffs do not have the standing to ask for any
relief arising from the court's action on her notice to dismiss
her complaint. This is especially true considering that the
allegations on the complaint mainly concern her only and the
defendants. Whatever rights her co-plaintiffs may have with
respect to the complaint will not at all be prejudiced by the
dismissal ordered upon her notice. The motion for
reconsideration must likewise be denied as it is hereby
denied.
On The Motion to Dismiss Filed by Tolentino
Insofar as the remaining plaintiffs are concerned, it would
appear that whatever cause of action they may still have
against the defendants has been seriously impaired, if not
negated, by the notice of dismissal by
plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofasand the apparent lack of
standing to sue by plaintiff Ligaya Biglang-Awa on her
behalf as well as of her capacity to sue in behalf of her co-
plaintiffs.
With respect to defendant PTC, it is clear that the allegations
of the complaint, insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned, fail
to state a cause of action. It is
plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofas Vda. de Biglang Awa who had
a cause of action against PTC but this has been done away
with by reason of her notice of dismissal.
The court also notes that the complaint fails to allege the
value of the real property that is the subject of the action and
for which docket fees ought to be assessed and paid for the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. The non-
payment of the appropriate docket fees is another ground for
the dismissal of the complaint.
The court therefore finds the motion to dismiss
by Tolentino as well as by PTC to be in order. Thus, these
motions are granted.
On The Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint
With the grant of the motion to dismiss, the consequent
denial of the motion for leave to amend complaint ought to
follow but there is need for some discussion on the matter.
During the hearing on the notice of dismissal and motion to
dismiss, plaintiff Encarnacion Cleofas Vda de Biglang Awa
unequivocally told the court among others, that she never
met plaintiff's counsel before and that she never authorized
nor engaged counsel to file the present complaint. Thus, her
notice to dismiss the action. This repudiation of a presumed
client-attorney relationship is quite disturbing to the court. It
indicates that some short-cuts or cutting corners, to put it
mildly, may have been resorted to by counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs.
In light of the foregoing, the motion for leave to amend
complaint filed by the same counsel for the plaintiffs would
not appear to be deserving of a favorable response from the
court, Moreover, the amendment sought to be made appears
to have drastically altered the causes of action of the parties
plaintiffs and parties defendants between and among
themselves.
It is true that an unwilling party plaintiff may be joined as a
defendant but this must be set out at the inception of the
complaint. Even if, for the sake of argument, that
this joinder may be made via an amendment, the allegations
of the complaint do not clearly indicate that the case
involves a party who refuses to give her consent to be joined
 as a plaintiff. As revealed in open court during the hearing
on the incidents, the plaintiff Encarnacion Cleaofas Vda.
de Biglang Awa has not been made aware at all of the filing
of the complaint and of the reasons therefore. It may not
therefore be correctly said that she was an unwilling co-
plaintiff.
Given the prevailing circumstances, the sound exercise of
discretion would be to withhold the grant of the relief prayed
for.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the court
resolves to:
1) deny defendant Tolentino's motion for issuance of
a certificate of finality;
2) deny [petitioners'] motion for reconsideration
3) grant the [respondent's] motion to dismiss; and
4) deny [petitioners'] motion for leave to amend
complaint.
The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the
commencement of any appropriate action that may be
initiated by the proper party plaintiffs against the proper
defendant or defendants.
The previously scheduled hearing on April 20, 2001, is
therefore without any further purpose. It is accordingly
cancelled.
SO ORDERED.[9] (Emphasis supplied)
On May 2, 2001, Tolentino, filed a Motion for Cancellation of Notice
of LisPendens[10] with respect to the four parcels of land covered by TCT
Nos. N-198629, N-198630, N-198631 and N-198632 derived from
the TCTs of Encarnacion.
On May 3, 2001, herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the April 16, 2001 RTC Resolution and an Opposition to Tolentino's Motion
for Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens.[11] Respondent filed its Opposition
and Reply to petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition.
Petitioners filed their Rejoinder to Opposition and Reply.
On August 14, 2001, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioners motion for
reconsideration and Tolentinos Motion for cancellation of notice
of Lis Pendens, thus:
xxxx
The Resolution of April 16, 2001 is clear and comprehensive
enough to be misread. Once a case is dismissed, there is
nothing else left to amend. Thus, the futility of a motion to
amend. Moreover, there is a peculiar ingredient in this case,
as already discussed in the questioned resolution, that called
for the court's exercise of discretion against an amendment.
The arguments raised by the movants fail to persuade the
court that a reconsideration is in order. Upon the other hand,
the position taken by [respondent] PTC in its Opposition and
Reply is sound and well taken. The court adopts the same
insofar as the reconsideration aspect is concerned.
Anent the motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens and the
opposition thereto, the court finds that it may not be granted
at this time in view of the clear pronouncement in the
resolution of April 16, 2001 that the dismissal of the
complaint is without prejudice to the commencement of any
appropriate action that may be initiated by the proper party
plaintiffs against the proper defendant or defendants.
The motion for reconsideration and the motion for
cancellation of notice of lispendens are thus both resolved in
the negative.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On September 19, 2001, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration[13] on
the ground that RTC ---- dated Febuary 2, 2001 declaring that there is no
further legal _______ to the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens have
already become final and executory.
On August 20, 2001, the RTC issued an Entry of Judgment[14] declaring that
its Order of February 2, 2001 dismissing the complaint of Encarnacion had
become final and executory.
On December 21, 2001, the RTC issued an Order denying respondent's
Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated August 14, 2001[15] on
the ground that the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens is simply not
accessible.
Unsatisfied by the August 14, 2001 and December 21, 2001 Orders of the
RTC, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA contending that
the RTC is guilty of grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion for
cancellation of the notices of lis pendens annotated on TCT Nos. N-198629
to N-198632.[16] The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 69643.
On March 26, 2002, petitioners also filed a petition for certiorari questioning
the August 14, 2001 Order of the RTC. The case was docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 69842. The issue raised in the said petition is whether the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted Tolentino's motion to
dismiss and denied petitioner's motion for leave to admit amended complaint.
However, the case wasdismissed by the CA via its Decision[17]promulgated
on February 27, 2004, which became final and executory on August 17,
2004.[18]
Meanwhile, on April 30, 2003, the CA promulgated the presently assailed
Decision with the following dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Order
dated August 14, 2001insofar as it denied the cancellation
of the notice of lis pendens covering TCT Nos. N-198629,
N-198630, N-198631, and N-198632, and the Order
dated December 21, 2001 issued by the public respondent
are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. It is ordered that
the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of Transfer
Certificate of Title Nos. N-198629, N-198630, N-198631,
and N-198632 be immediately canceled.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by
the CA via its Resolution of July 4, 2003.[20]
Hence, the present petition raising the following issues:
1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error
of law in reversing and setting aside the order of the RTC
dated 14 August 2001 wherein it denied the motion
of Roberth B. Tolentino praying for the cancellation of
the lis pendensannotated at the back of torrens titles issued in
the name of Encarnacion Biglang-Awa.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error
of law in disregarding the fact that it is [a] matter of right of
the petitioners to amend their complaint prior to the
submission of an answer or responsive pleading by the
adverse parties
3) Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed an error
of law in finding that the petitioners have no more cause of
action against the respondents since petitioners have no more
any direct or indirect interest to protect.[21]
Petitioners contend that the February 2, 2001 Order of the RTC never
attained finality because petitioners were able to seasonably move for its
reconsideration; that in its Resolution of April 16, 2001, the RTC amended
and modified its February 2, 2001 Order by ruling that (t)he dismissal of the
complaint is without prejudice to the commencement of any appropriate
action that may be initiated by the proper party plaintiffs against the proper
party defendant or defendants; that the April 16, 2001 Resolution of the RTC
has become final and executory because none of the defendants filed a
motion for its reconsideration.
Petitioners aver that under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, as well
as in several rulings of this Court, a party may amend his pleading once as a
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served; that prior
to the filing ofTolentino's answer, petitioners filed an amended complaint
wherein they alleged that they are co-owners of the subject parcels of land
and that they have been deprived of their proper shares in the partition of the
said lands through the falsifications committed by the
defendants impleaded in the original and amended complaints.
Petitioners further claim that the CA erred in ruling that there is no longer
any legal obstacle to effect the cancellation of the notice
of lis pendens annotated on the titles covering the subject properties since
petitioners do not have any interest to protect. On the contrary, petitioners
claim that they will be greatly prejudiced by the cancellation of the notice
of lis pendens on TCT Nos. N-198629, N-198630, N-198631, and N-198632
because they are co-owners pro-indiviso of the eight parcels of land subject
of the instant case; that the dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-00-42489 did not
ipso facto operate as cancellation of the notice of lis pendens since such
dismissal has not attained finality.
Respondent further counters that under Section 14, Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court, a notice of lis pendens may be canceled after showing that the purpose
of the annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary
to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be annotated; that in the
present case, the CA did not commit any error of law in ordering the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendenson the subject titles as these
annotations are clearly not necessary to protect the rights of petitioners.
Respondent further contends that the notice of lis pendens being ordered
canceled by the CA refers to those annotated over the title to the properties
which were formerly owned exclusively by Encarnacion; the order does not
include the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on the titles of
the properties formerly owned by petitioners; that Encarnacion's exclusive
ownership of four out of the eight parcels of land subject of the complaint is
confirmed by the petitioners themselves in their complaint; that it is
deceptive for petitioners to continuously refer to the allegations in their
amended complaint because such amended complaint was not admitted by
the RTC in its Resolution dated April 16, 2001.
Respondent further argues that the complaint filed by petitioners was already
dismissed by the RTC per its Orders dated February 2, 2001 and April 16,
2001; that the Order of February 2, 2001 was a dismissal with prejudice
insofar as it affects the four properties formerly owned by Encarnacion and
insofar as respondent is concerned considering that the latter was
merely impleaded as a mortgagee of these properties; that the Order of the
RTC dated April 16, 2001 did not amend its February 2, 2001 Order as the
dismissal without prejudice being contemplated by the April 16, 2001 Order
refers to the remaining four properties allegedly owned by petitioners
excluding those parcels of land formerly owned by Encarnacion; that the
February 2, 2001 and April 16, 2001 Orders of the RTC had already become
final and executory.
Lastly, respondent contends that the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No.
69842) filed by petitioners with the CA questioning the propriety of the April
16, 2001 Order of the RTC had already been dismissed by the CA and that
the decision of the CA had already become final and executory.
Premised on the factual circumstances established in the present case, the
basic issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the RTC should have allowed
petitioners to amend their complaint against herein respondent, and (2)
whether it is proper to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated at the back
of the Torrens titles issued in the name of Encarnacion.
The petition is not meritorious.
With respect to the first issue, it is true that petitioners were able to file a
Motion for Reconsideration of the February 2, 2001 Order of the RTC.
However, in its April 16, 2001 Resolution, the RTC denied said Motion. On
petition for certiorari filed by petitioners, the CA, in its February 27,
2004 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 69842, affirmed the RTC Resolution
of April 16, 2001. The CA Decision became final and executory on August
17, 2004.[22] The February 2, 2001 Order of the RTC dismissing the
complaint, insofar only as Encarnacion and all the defendants therein,
namely: Tolentino herein respondent and the Register of Deeds
for Quezon City, are concerned, had become final and executory.
The Court likewise agrees that the April 16, 2001 Resolution of the RTC did
not amend its February 2, 2001 Order. The subject Resolution concerns the
dismissal, without prejudice, of the remaining plaintiffs' (herein petitioners)
complaint, and does not in any way affect the earlier dismissal of the
complaint of Encarnacion.
With respect to petitioners' right to amend their Complaint, after respondent
had filed its answer, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 2. Amendments as a matter of right.
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at
any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the
case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is
served.
SEC. 3. Amendments by leave of court
Except as provided in the next preceding Section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But
such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the
motion was made with intent to delay. Orders of the Court
upon the matters provided in this Section shall be made upon
 motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party,
and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)
In Republic v. Africa[23], this Court held that where some but not all of the
defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their complaint once, as a
matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering
defendants, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants.
In the present case, prior to petitioners' filing of their Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint and to Admit Attached Amended Complaint, respondent
already filed its Answer with Counterclaim. Hence, since respondent had
already filed its answer, it follows that petitioners may no longer amend their
complaint against the former as a matter of right. They may do so only upon
leave of court, as provided under Section 3, Rule 10[24] of the same Rules,
which they did by filing their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
In the recent case of Philippine Ports
[25]
Authority v.William Gothong & Aboitiz(WG&A), Inc. , this Court, in
discussing the import of Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, as
amended, held that:
Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the
phrase or that the cause of action or defense is substantially
altered was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules.
The clear import of such amendment in Section 3, Rule 10 is
that under the new rules, the amendment may (now)
substantially alter the cause of action or defense. This should
only be true, however when despite a substantial change or
alteration in the cause of action or defense, the amendments
sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of
substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote
the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a just,
speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.
On the basis of the foregoing ruling, the denial of petitioners' Motion for
Leave to Amend Complaint on the ground that the amendment drastically
altered the causes of action of the parties plaintiffs and parties defendants
between and among themselves is erroneous.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that the RTC correctly denied petitioners'
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, although for a different reason.
In their original complaint, petitioners claim that the properties covered by
TCT Nos. N-198629 to N-198632 were owned exclusively by Encarnacion.
There was no mention whatsoever that Encarnacion's titles over these parcels
of land were obtained through fraud or any other illegal means. However, in
their Amended Complaint, where petitioners sought to
make Encarnacion and Liwayway as defendants, they subsequently seek the
nullification of Encarnacion's titles over the abovementioned parcels of land
by alleging that petitioners together with Encarncacion and Liwaywayare co-
owners of all the subject that and the titles thereto were obtained on the basis
of falsified subdivision agreements and subdivision plans.
It should be noted, however, that the basis of the February 2, 2001 Order
and April 16, 2001 Resolution of the trial court, both of which had already
become final and executory, is its finding that the four parcels of land
covered by TCT Nos. N-198629 to N-198632 were exclusively owned
by Encarnacion. Since the February 2, 2001Order and the April 16, 2001
Resolution of the RTC had already become final and executory, petitioners
are already precluded from claiming otherwise. If petitioners are permitted to
amend their complaint they would, in effect, alter a factual conclusion of the
RTC which it used as its basis in rendering its February 2, 2001Order
and April 16, 2001 Resolution. Settled is the rule that a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable.[26] A final judgment
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law; and whether it will be made
by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land.[27] The only
exceptions to this rule are the correction of (1) clerical errors, (2) the so-
called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, and (3)
void judgments.[28] None of these exceptions are present in the instant case.
Moreover, the RTC already dismissed the Complaint filed by petitioners for
lack of jurisdiction over the action because petitioners failed to pay the
appropriate docket fees. Petitioners did not appeal this ruling of the RTC. In
any case, such order of dismissal had already become final
and executory pending resolution of the present petition. On this basis, the
Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is rendered moot.
As to the second issue, petitioners had categorically declared in their original
Complaint that the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. N-198629 to N-
198632 were previously owned exclusively by Encarnacion. On this basis,
the RTC correctly ruled that petitioners have no cause of action against
respondent. In its Order of February 2, 2001, the RTC
affirmed Encarnacion's Notice of Dismissal of her complaint against the adverse party, or (2) when the annotation is not necessary to
defendants therein. The RTC also ruled that by reason of such dismissal, protect the title of the party who caused it to be recorded.[30]
there is no longer any legal obstacle to the cancellation of the notice
of lis pendens annotated on TCT Nos. N-198629 to N-198632. However, in
In the instant case, it is established that petitioners have no interest over the
its August 14, 2001 Order, the RTC denied Tolentino's Motion for
properties covered by TCT Nos. N-198629 to 198632. Hence, the annotation
Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens which are annotated on the
of notices of lispendens on the abovementioned titles is not necessary to
abovementioned TCTs, Nonetheless, the CA, in its presently assailed
protect petitioners individual titles over the other properties involved in their
Decision reversed the August 14, 2001 Order of the RTC and directed the
complaint.
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens annotated on the subject TCTs.
Furthermore, as the complaint of petitioners was already dismissed without
The Court agrees with the CA. The Court's disquisition in Romero v. Court of
prejudice, and since petitioners had not filed any other case involving the
Appeals[29] is instructive, to wit:
subject properties, there is no longer any pending suit to speak of.

Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the
jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over
property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the
action, and until final judgment Founded upon public policy
and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties
in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation
is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or
decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an
announcement to the whole world that a particular property
is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires
an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that
he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1)
to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power
of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent
the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations;
and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land
subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the
court will promulgate subsequently.
Hence, the CA did not commit any error when it ordered the cancellation of
the notices of lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT Nos. N-198629 to N-
198632.
Lastly, petitioners insist on their allegations they set forth in their Amended
Complaint that they are pro-indiviso owners of the subject parcels of land and
that Encarnacion and Tolentino submitted a falsified Subdivision Agreement
and Subdivision Plan resulting in the partition of and the issuance of title
over the subject properties. Suffice it to say, however, that the RTC
Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint had
already become final and executory. This only means that the original
Complaint stands. In effect, petitioner cannot use the Amended Complaint as
a basis for indemnity that the notice of lis pendens should not be cancelled as
it does not form part of the records.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated April 30, 2003 and its Resolution of July 4, 2003 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

While the trial court has inherent power to cancel a notice

of lis pendens, such power, meanwhile, is exercised under
express provisions of law. As provided for by Sec. 14, Rule
13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a notice
of lis pendens may be canceled on two grounds: (1) if the
annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the